Related

18 Comments:

Well the obvious answer would be, if abortion is not murder, then the murder of a pregnant woman shouldn’t be considered a double homicide. Besides, I don’t think this was the law until Bush in the first place, and he was clearly pro-life.

I wish to thank you, psychoticmath, for taking the time to respond. It is greatly appreciated.

I agree with your sound reasoning; “if abortion is not murder, then the murder of a pregnant woman shouldn’t be considered a double homicide.”
However, I have to disagree with you thought on the origin of the law. It predates Bush, or for that matter, the founding of America. The law concerning “harming a pregnant female with child” comes to us from God by way of the (Torah) Old Testament of the Bible and; what God says about life, infants and the shedding of innocent blood. To further confirm the fact that God views the unborn child as a person, please consider Exodus 21:22-23:

“If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,”

If the woman has a premature birth and the child lives (“no mischief follows”), then there’s no death penalty. However, if the child dies (or the woman dies) God says the death penalty applies: “thou shalt give life for life.” Why would God require the death penalty if He didn’t consider the unborn child to be a human being?

For a complete view of this topic, including science, a theological view and more see: ABORTION: Ten Bible Reasons why it is Wrong on altruistico at http://wp.me/p26QNa-18K .

May the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob bless and keep you, and yours, always.

I was talking about the American law not Old Testament law. In any case, I would point you to another version of those verses. Exodus 21: 22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows.” -NIV

Thank you, psychoticmath for the simplification and clarification found in the NIV. What makes it murder, however, is verse 23 of the NIV, which states: “But if there is serious injury (death of child or mother), you are to take life for life,” and; that was the crux of the topic. Your usage of the NIV will help other readers understand, perhaps, more clearly. for that I thank you.

Yes, I was aware of what you were stating, as far as, the origins of the law (here in America). I was not intentionally correcting you, but rather, making a point to other readers as too how far back such a law has been in effect and it’s origin. As to whether it was President Bush, or not, I honestly do not know. Perhaps a reader will be more knowledgeable and inform us.

I wrote a post several years ago that among other things considered how Exodus 21:22-25 should be interpreted. I think that when Moses wrote those words the Hebrews would have understood that an unborn child is a human being.

Here is the issue. When we read different versions of a controversial Bible passage, we must take the time to understand the controversy and decide which translators are most guilty of letting their own personal biases get the best of them.

How do we discover who is biased? We must put ourselves in the position of the people who first read or heard Exodus read. We must consider that we often operate with a different set of assumptions. Whereas we dispute the humanity of an unborn child, the Hebrews did not. They saw the child as human, and they understood that child might be delivered a little early without any serious harm. Because abortions were rare, they also had almost no motivation to make the absurd legal distinctions we make out of the moment of birth.

I don’t consider myself Jewish or Christian, and I have yet to make a decision on what I think about abortion. It seems, as far as Biblical text is concerned, abortion really could be argued either way. For me, if abortion is wrong it’s not about when grant an entity “human life” status and more about whether the argument for potentiality is a good one.

The argument for potentiality is an important aspect of a more excellent argument. At conception, we know everything is there that is needed to grow a mature human being. However, that knowledge alone cannot cinch the argument. What is ultimately at issue is to whom does this growing child belong. Is the child merely the property — the plaything of the mother and perhaps the father, or is each of us the property of our ultimate Creator?

Even when we know for a fact that an unborn babe can grow into a mature human being, if that child seems likely to be an inconvenience, why should we love the child and not discard it? The argument for potentiality alone cannot answer that question.

The Bible provides an answer. The Bible says that our Creator created that child for His purpose. Further, the Bible says each of us is made in His image. Therefore, we can show our love for Him by loving the image of Him that we see in others. Because each of us is made in His image, our privilege, our duty, is to help each other grow to become more like our Father in heaven.

Yet whether you will achieve such an understanding depends upon what you believe about our Creator and about His purpose in creating us. Until you believe God loves us and made us to be as children to Him, you will probably not find the argument for potentiality convincing.

Thank you, Tom, for your insight and help into this matter. As always every comment is welcome and appreciated.

In regard to potentiality I want to add the following: The potentiality argument refers to the real actual capacity of a human embryo to develop into a subject. The argument states that even, for example, unborn or unconscious people who for a time are not actually capable of conscious acts are still potentially acting subjects and are therefore to be accorded the dignity due to a subject.

According to the potentiality argument, the consuming embryonic research and hence the research on human embryonic stem cells (ES cells) are morally unjustifiable, since the early embryo is already a potential person and is as such endowed with the moral status of the person. However, the research on induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells) has meanwhile clarified that these as well can develop into a whole living organism under specific circumstances; of which we will not go into at this time.

I believe, and Tom please correct me if I’m mistaken here, [that] we refer to an embryo as a “potential human” due in part to the fact a female may miscarriage and not carry the child full term. The life being terminated therefore by natural means. However that being said the “potentiality argument” is quite clear in that since the early embryo is already a potential person and is as such endowed with the moral status of the person. Thus the taking of an embryo by any of the four methods of abortion is morally reprehensible and tantamount to murder.

Tom, I wish also to thank you for the link you have provided me and others. This to is greatly appreciated.

May the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob bless and keep you, and yours, always.

Is an embryo a “potential human”? In a practical sense an embroyo is not human, and in a practical sense an embroyo is human.

According to our immediate perceptions, an embroyo is not human. We cannot interact with an embroyo as we would a mature human being. Therefore, an embroyo is only a potential human being. Until an embroyo achieves sufficient maturity, we do not have the capacity to interact with this litte person. We just know from experience an embroyo has the potential to grow into a mature human being. We just know that at about two years after birth, we will be able to talk with what is now a potential human being.

According to the Word of God and to the spirit, an embroyo is already human. You are already familiar with what the Bible says. You know that God knows each of us before we are born, that He has plans for us. Yet have you ever considered how a woman reacts when she loses the child she is carrying. She does not suffer the lost casually. She does not just shrug her shoulders and say “we will try again.” First, she grieves. Her heart knows that embryo was not just a blob of flesh, and so she suffers with the pain of losing someone she loved.

That’s why when a woman has an abortion she is riven with guilt. That’s why some women turn to our Lord seeking forgiveness, and that’s is why some women dig in their heels and damn those who call abortion wrong. Whereas the former repent, the latter fear the guilt. The latter will not admit — refuse to admit — any reason for it exists.

Consider Planned Parenthood’s rejection of sonograms. Does it really make any sense? If they truly cared about the mental health of their customers, what is wrong with a sonogram? If a all it takes is a sonogram to change a woman’s mind about abortion, then it should be obvious that after aborting her child she will suffer tremendous guilt. But it is not the woman Planned Parenthood cares about. It is the money, and it is the fact that each abortion serves as an affirmation of the last abortion.

Tom, once again thank you for your wonderful insight and knowledge. I am hopeful that many will have the opportunity to read this and grow their knowledge of abortion.

I think also that the question of “when does the potentiality argument arise and how does one deal with such question?” Let me clarify my question. Certainly an argument can be raised concerning abstinence when one is confronted with potentiality of human life. We no longer teach abstinence; yet, I believe the two raise awareness of the consequences of pregnancy and the elimination of abortion. What is your opinion on this, Tom?

Once again thank you for your time and consideration. Both are greatly appreciated.

I have no idea who first issued the quip above, but latter wits altered it.

“Abstinence makes the heart grow fonder for someone else.”

The altered version of the quip proves by the former version. When two people respect each other and love each other enough to want to keep the other pure, they are on the way to a long and successful marriage. They will stick by each other, whereas “lovers” who refuse any obligation for self control will not.

Joe, thank you for your response. It is, as always, greatly appreciated. I have to agree and I would add only that scientist are, or can be, a fickle-profession by and large. It is very much a double standard. I think most scientist do believe life begins at conception. However, they are politically motivated to abstain from making politically incorrect statements due to government funding of many scientific explorations. To me this is quite hypocritical of them.

I believe “Life is Life” regardless of it’s origin or . Life does begin at conception and where there are cells there is life. Whether a plant or a human.

In a post entitled “Abortion: Ten Bible Reasons Why it is Wrong” I point out a great deal on the science view of life. I admit the post is lengthy but there are many informative issues contained within it. See: http://wp.me/p26QNa-18K for the complete posting.

Joe, once again, thank you for your response. It truly is appreciated.

Michael, I’ve been reading your blog most of the afternoon! Thanks for taking time to explain so many topics in detail. Abortion is one of the things that hurts me so much, especially reading pro-choice nonsense all over Facebook and Internet and even some of my friends being pro-choice. This world is full of pain and people are blind, walking dead and being aware of that makes me sad and hurt.

Sibella, I could not have said it better. Abortion is one of my sadness areas as well. It is murder of the innocent – the shedding of innocent blood if you will. God opposes it as surely as man is opposing God in our times. I think of all of the young girls/women who are in moral decline. Using sex as a means of finding true happiness and love – and when they become pregnant – their only reward is more unhappiness and despair. Ending in a choice of whether to keep a child or abort it. Many of these young girls or women have never had a good role model or heard the word of Jesus Christ and His plan of redemption, love and peace. They know not of the wonderment of God or His transcending love, mercy and kindness; for it surpasses all of their own understanding. They lack spiritual healing as a result.

I agree with you – whole heartedly, Sibella, when you say “This world is full of pain and people are blind, walking dead and being aware of that makes me sad and hurt.” The question remains; “what will you do about it?” What will you do about the pain and suffering in the world? What will you do for the blind and walking dead? What is God calling you to do?

Thank you for your comments and thoughts, Sibella, both are greatly appreciated.